FEC130 Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Whats the latest on the AMP. That program has been off the radar for a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RZHill Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 AMP , A money PIT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StovetopNav Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 Got scaled back by OSD last year. Only 222 (all slick H2/H2.5/H3s) will currently receive the mod. Obviously ARC heavy. 3d one is in conversion now (H3 from Charlie West I think) for the test phase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetcal1 Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 This was posted on 18 January on Fed Bizopps Modification to the C-130 AVIONICS MODERNIZATION PROGRAM (AMP) LOW RATE INITIAL PRODUCTION (LRIP) PRE-SOLICITATION ANNOUNCEMENT. Contracting Office: Department of the Air Force, Air Force Materiel Command, Aeronautical Systems Center, 866th Aeronautical Systems Group, Wright Patterson AFB, OH, 45433, anticipates issuing, on or about January 2008, a sole source Request for Proposal to The Boeing Company, 2401 East Wardlow Road, Long Beach, CA 90807-5309 for the manufacture and installation of approximately twenty-six (26) C-130 AMP LRIP kits. This acquisition is a follow-on to the competitively awarded C-130 AMP System Development and Design contract currently being performed by Boeing (F33657-01-C-0047) Here is the link: http://www.fbo.gov/spg/USAF/AFMC/ASC/656AESS%5FPK%5FC130LRIP/Modification%2002.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RZHill Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Now , only the H2/3\'s are to be modified, Really doesn\'t make a bit of sense. For quite a long time you are creating yet another variation that has to be taught. The reserve forces that \"own\" (sic) these acft have flown together in every conflict since Desert Shield. Kinda dumb, and a waste of money don\'t you think? RZ Hill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hush Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 RZ - What is driving AMP upgrades (KC-10, C-5, KC-135PC upgrades, Navy C-130, etc) is the need for the aircraft to be compliant in European airspace, often referred to as Global Air Navigation & Safety/Global Air Traffic Management (GANS/GATM - it has other acronyms). That upgrade, which was one of the original requirements driving AMP, obviously ballooned because of cost/schedule/risk/etc (same old sh_ _). The services, to include SOCOM/AFSOC and NAVAIR are looking for alternatives to the Boeing AMP (which exist; a number of companies have already developed, flown and certified a “glass cockpit†which generally meet GANS/GATM requirements). The fact is that the AF/DoD can’t afford everything on its plate and has to find money to fix structural problems on a lot of aircraft (C-130, P-3, F-15, KC-135, etc) in addition to meeting unfunded requirements (GANS/GATM), fuel costs and aircraft high utilization rates. Strictly my thoughts folks…… Hush Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetcal1 Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Hush wrote: RZ - What is driving AMP upgrades (KC-10, C-5, KC-135PC upgrades, Navy C-130, etc) is the need for the aircraft to be compliant in European airspace, often referred to as Global Air Navigation & Safety/Global Air Traffic Management (GANS/GATM - it has other acronyms). That upgrade, which was one of the original requirements driving AMP, obviously ballooned because of cost/schedule/risk/etc (same old sh_ _). The services, to include SOCOM/AFSOC and NAVAIR are looking for alternatives to the Boeing AMP (which exist; a number of companies have already developed, flown and certified a “glass cockpit†which generally meet GANS/GATM requirements). The fact is that the AF/DoD can’t afford everything on its plate and has to find money to fix structural problems on a lot of aircraft (C-130, P-3, F-15, KC-135, etc) in addition to meeting unfunded requirements (GANS/GATM), fuel costs and aircraft high utilization rates. Not all of the balloning costs can be attributed to cost/schedule/risk/etc. Products are developed to the point of design freeze on equipment designed as a drop in replacment only to have the program manager start adding \"nice to have features\" that force a redesign. Once that happens it starts snowballing from there. I am afraid that some responsibiliy lies with program managers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StovetopNav Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Fault lies with PMs and senior leadership above them changing their requirements...there\'s enough blame to spread to a lot of folks. It ultimately affects the line guys/gals; who knows what the final mix will be. I personally found it irresponsible to take the H1s out of the AMP line...they\'re getting new CWBs, and very similar to H2s, so development wouldn\'t be too much $ (hell, most of it was already done) and we\'d finally have only 2 types of Herks in the MAF...C-130 AMPs and C-130Js. Well, except for Nashville... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wysongj Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 94-6704 from Charlie West was the latest to go in. Kind of sad, as the 130th AW won\'t get 704 back. Takes them from 9 to 8 H3\'s. 704 was the last plane I took on a trip, and that trip was to Bagram. Good plane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 The number of airplanes that will get the Boeing AMP mod is still a TBD. After the Boeing AMP program passed the Nunn-McCurdy evaluation, the remaining funding that had originally been appropriated for about 600 airplanes (WAG) would only cover about 244 airplanes on an updated schedule. Part of the increased cost resulted from delays in the program, moving the spending profile to the right; into out years that had not been anticipated in the original estimate. Some of this delay was to free up DOD funds to fight the war(s) in the mid-east and some of the increase was due to growth in scope. Part of the Nunn-McCurdy evaluation was to determine whether or not AMP was really a worthwhile program; and the answer from the comittee was affirmative. Decisions at higher levels in DOD were made for selection of the 244 airplanes. More airplanes may be added back into the AMP program at a later date. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StovetopNav Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Well...I can tell you that the current program of record is 222 aircraft. That can always change down the road, but the official number is 222 C-130 AMPs...all slick H2s, H2.5s, & H3s. Any other number is incorrect (and it hasn\'t changed since the Nunn-McCurdy restructure and the DoD made the 222 decision.) At least until someone takes the money away... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quietus Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 So does that 222 include the AFSOC birds? According to the latest Air Force Times (Air Force Whine dated 28 Jan 08), AFSOC has pulled completely out of getting any of its birds AMP\'ed. I don\'t know how old that info in the story really is. Seems like AFSOC is going to be depending completely on the J model to replace the MC fleet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StovetopNav Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 No AFSOC in the CURRENT AMP program. 222 slick, standard combat delivery Herks...all but 14 are ARC. Given how much this program has changed, I wouldn\'t expect this to be the final laydown, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C130H2FE Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 As far as I have heard no AFSOC tails are in the 222, only slicks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMPTestFE Posted March 30, 2008 Share Posted March 30, 2008 Your guess is as good as anybody\'s with regard to AFSOC. I think the H-1 is back in the hunt! I\'ve even heard that a select FEW E-models are being considered. I know of at least one at LRANG (the first E-model) that has very few hours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lkuest Posted March 30, 2008 Share Posted March 30, 2008 I know of at least one at LRANG (the first E-model) that has very few hours That particular plane now flies for AETC, but you\'re right. It is pretty low time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StovetopNav Posted March 30, 2008 Share Posted March 30, 2008 The H1\'s have a shot. Depends on the Air Staff. No E\'s are being considered, other than for FMS or to show someone how expensive their bright idea is... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.